Eventually I knew what she was working on and I am happy to publish the documents that she had sent me; especially as I received one that I hadn’t seen before: an Affidavit as sworn, that she wrote with respect to a case in a Florida Court where The Society of Lloyd’s complained against one Karl Aronson. Here is the text, in which she makes a few remarkable points – in the paragraphs with the number mentioned:

13. The assumption is that those in power can do no wrong.

17. When the interests of the Queen and any part of her elite government are at risk, only one outcome is acceptable. Legal proceedings in English courts are therefore driven to that outcome by fair means or foul.

18. White collar crime, with very rare exceptions, goes untried and unpunished in English law.

26. Judges are covered by Crown immunity in all their actions. Barristers cannot be sued for negligence. Geoffrey Robertson QC, a barrister with 25 years experience stated in regard to this immunity (1999): “…barristers are well paid and immune to actions for negligence…They cling to their immunity from actions for negligence – an unjustified privilege which protects incompetents from being sued.”

Some Recent Opinions79. Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, delivered a fierce attack on the commercial legal system at Mansion House. Mr. King said

the adversarial system for settling civil legal disputes was in reality ‘a profitable monopoly of lawyers’ and called for the Government to take steps to reform the law.

80. In a recent Times interview, Robert Wardle, director of the Serious Fraud Office, warned that the police and prosecution authorities trying to combat fraud are struggling. In a letter to the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, QC, Wardle said in his annual report: “There remains a gap between the incidence of fraud and the number of investigations, let alone prosecutions…I am not suggesting that the justice gap can be closed–merely narrowed.” At present, he told The Times, “frauds are going uninvestigated and unprosecuted” (my emphasis).

Conclusion
81. It is my carefully considered opinion given with all due respect, based upon personal experience and knowledge, that English courts are not fair and impartial tribunals where things get put right. English courts are corrupt forums based on unwarranted privilege which perversely excuse and conceal the gravest misconduct.

Sadly and ironically, this is what the tyrants want and wait for. The ultimate death of all those who oppose injustice. ‘They’ know, given time, we are all mortal. We pass, like specks of dust across a screen. Among the just, the names of Suzon Forscey-Moore and Maurice Kirk will become legendary long after their tormentors have passed into oblivion.

With so many cases of injustice extant, it is right we keep the case of Maurice and the name of Suzon before the world. If one crack appears in the wall of silence then, like the Berlin Wall, the rest will, given time, crumble.

Sadly, for many of us, time is as much the enemy as those who perpetrate evil so blatantly. Of this we can be sure, the evil perpetrated by those who claim to administer justice in Britain is not going to be defeated without a monumental battle. But, Goliath was killed by one small stone thrown by one small boy if we are to believe the legend. We also know there is a grain of truth behind every such legend.

The written testimony of each and every victim and every supporter is like a small stone aimed at injustice. It will take only one such stone to kill the monster.

In the end, justice for all depends on responding to people who believe that they have been denied natural justice and due process, as it appears in this case. There are too many serious allegations here, based on personal accounts of how individuals have experienced the workings of a legal system that seems to favour some well entrenched interests while disadvantaging vulnerable individuals and groups lacking status and influence.

This is a serious matter crying out to be carefully investigated with findings openly reported for public consumption.

it now seems to me that “institutions” think they’re “working” by communicating among themselves. They never deal with “individual cases”. They just report / regulate / describe what “statistics” are doing, i.e. what the EFFECTS are of the CAUSES of money as the ‘tool for employment’ and thus ‘control’…